Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36053 comments on the www.smh.com.au story from Aug 15, 2011, titled Homosexuality and the Bible. In it, www.smh.com.au reports that:

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.smh.com.au.

Angel

Aurora, CO

#24237 Jan 12, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't be a part of any solution when you ignore reality.
The idea that a fallacy imposed on the most important relationship in society will have no effect, is ludicrous.
Your claim has already been debunked.
The claim was no-fault divorce would have no affect on children. We now know it follows them into adulthood. And divorce skyrocketed.
The claim was abortion would rare and necessary. 40 million dead babies, couples living out of wedlock and single parent families further decimated society.
Now you are claiming a fraudulent relationship imposed on marriage that requires children not be considered will have no affect.
Stay away from kids honey. You are deadly.
Honey, my kids, all 6, are doing fabulous. 4 in the us Air Force, 1 graduate of Aberdeen university with a masters , and one in high school. All in successful relationships. And my kids wouldn't have had it any other way.

I don't have claims on anything. I have proof. Gay marriage has been legal, again, in many other countries, for many years, and nothing has changed there except the economy is better. That is proof.

Tell me why, just because some people don't agree, it shouldn't exist? What actual physical thing is going to be so horrible if gay people are allowed to marry? Tell me. Don't avoid the question, answer it directly please.
Light

San Jose, CA

#24238 Jan 12, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Most Christians have very little understanding of the Bible.
Gay marriage is not in the bible. It is an abomination, now that is in the bible.
Angel

Aurora, CO

#24239 Jan 12, 2014
Light wrote:
<quoted text>Gay marriage is not in the bible. It is an abomination, now that is in the bible.
It doesn't matter. The bible is Christian, not American.
asd

Hawthorne, CA

#24241 Jan 12, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
ASD, the word translated as abomination in the Bible, rather interpreted abomination does not convey a sin against God. What it conveys, in context, as well as alongside of the context of other passages, conveys a disgust as the correct translation, abhorrence conveys. This disgust is within the culture of Israel. The many disgusts are on the same level as Leviticus 18:22. If you could prove that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin then I would agree with you, but it does not. You cannot and therefore must capitulate. You have no documentation otherwise.
As I have said before, yes, I understand. Your point is that the word "abomination" as used by the ancient writers may not necessarily translate the same meaning as the word "abomination" as used and commonly understood by present day humanity. You contend that it meant something else horrible, deviant and disgusting back then, and perhaps numerous something elses, but not the singular horrible deviancy that it means to people today, which is restricted mostly to their deviant activity and lifestyle. My point is that it doesn't matter. To people today their deviant activity is the very essence of abomination, and humans will always equate their deviant activity as abominable, and will always associate their present day abomination with the abomination of the Bible.
The question is why do they even care? Hasn't a person lost and abandoned any and all sake of normalcy when the choice is made to engage in the abominable activity?
And if, as confessed child molesters freely admit, they simply "had no choice" or "just couldn't help myself," then doesn't that pertain to restrict them to non-sensitive areas of society where their lack of self-control can't hurt the rest of us? If they are wont to capitulate in furtherance of the deviation, shouldn't we ensure a non-threatening place for them in society? Since even they themselves freely admit that they can't be trusted in the face of the deviancy, shouldn't we at least attempt to determine the elements of the deviancy? Break it down into its constituent parts?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#24242 Jan 12, 2014
Angel wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, my kids, all 6, are doing fabulous. 4 in the us Air Force, 1 graduate of Aberdeen university with a masters , and one in high school. All in successful relationships. And my kids wouldn't have had it any other way.
I don't have claims on anything. I have proof. Gay marriage has been legal, again, in many other countries, for many years, and nothing has changed there except the economy is better. That is proof.
Tell me why, just because some people don't agree, it shouldn't exist? What actual physical thing is going to be so horrible if gay people are allowed to marry? Tell me. Don't avoid the question, answer it directly please.
Honey, I've given nothing but answers. You have had no reasoned response but to brush them aside. You clearly have a predetermined response that is based on your will. Good luck.

Smile.
angel

Aurora, CO

#24243 Jan 12, 2014
I didn't think so.
angel

Aurora, CO

#24244 Jan 12, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, I've given nothing but answers. You have had no reasoned response but to brush them aside. You clearly have a predetermined response that is based on your will. Good luck.
Smile.
I was hoping you could just answer the question. But maybe you just can't.
Allow me to rephrase.

In what physical way will you be harmed by gay marriage?(And I say physical because no one else is responsible for you actions, reactions, interpretations, misgivings, or feelings but you.)

I guess if you have no answer, then you have no argument.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#24245 Jan 12, 2014
asd wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have said before, yes, I understand. Your point is that the word "abomination" as used by the ancient writers may not necessarily translate the same meaning as the word "abomination" as used and commonly understood by present day humanity. You contend that it meant something else horrible, deviant and disgusting back then, and perhaps numerous something elses, but not the singular horrible deviancy that it means to people today, which is restricted mostly to their deviant activity and lifestyle. My point is that it doesn't matter. To people today their deviant activity is the very essence of abomination, and humans will always equate their deviant activity as abominable, and will always associate their present day abomination with the abomination of the Bible.
The question is why do they even care? Hasn't a person lost and abandoned any and all sake of normalcy when the choice is made to engage in the abominable activity?
And if, as confessed child molesters freely admit, they simply "had no choice" or "just couldn't help myself," then doesn't that pertain to restrict them to non-sensitive areas of society where their lack of self-control can't hurt the rest of us? If they are wont to capitulate in furtherance of the deviation, shouldn't we ensure a non-threatening place for them in society? Since even they themselves freely admit that they can't be trusted in the face of the deviancy, shouldn't we at least attempt to determine the elements of the deviancy? Break it down into its constituent parts?
You asked, "shouldn't we at least attempt to determine the elements of the deviancy?" Are you qualified to understand the meaning of deviancy in psychology? Do you suggest that common, uneducated folk apply their fears qualifying what is a deviancy and how it threatens society?

As I have documented, abomination comes down to something that is culturally disgusting and, not a sin. I find very few things disgusting and try to tolerate others beliefs. When a Christian misrepresents Christianity then I do find them disgusting.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24246 Jan 12, 2014
Light wrote:
<quoted text>Gay marriage is not in the bible. It is an abomination, now that is in the bible.
Sure it is, you missed it. Keep studying.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#24247 Jan 13, 2014
angel wrote:
<quoted text>
I was hoping you could just answer the question. But maybe you just can't.
Allow me to rephrase.
In what physical way will you be harmed by gay marriage?(And I say physical because no one else is responsible for you actions, reactions, interpretations, misgivings, or feelings but you.)
I guess if you have no answer, then you have no argument.
If you look back, I've already answered that question for you. Along with every argument you raised.

Your response has consistently been to ignore the answer and raise another, or plead that we 'just do it'.

I guess if you have no answer, then you have no argument.

SMile.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#24248 Jan 13, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you look back, I've already answered that question for you. Along with every argument you raised.
Your response has consistently been to ignore the answer and raise another, or plead that we 'just do it'.
I guess if you have no answer, then you have no argument.
SMile.
Denial and deflection.
asd

Hawthorne, CA

#24249 Jan 13, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked, "shouldn't we at least attempt to determine the elements of the deviancy?" Are you qualified to understand the meaning of deviancy in psychology? Do you suggest that common, uneducated folk apply their fears qualifying what is a deviancy and how it threatens society?
As I have documented, abomination comes down to something that is culturally disgusting and, not a sin. I find very few things disgusting and try to tolerate others beliefs. When a Christian misrepresents Christianity then I do find them disgusting.
You misunderstand. Didn't mean "we," you and I, but meant "we," as a society, should be free to explore aspects of the mental, emotional, electro-chemical and all other processes associated with unnatural human behavior. I, nor you, have means of determining whether or not common, uneducated folk can effect a resolution or not. I am sure that some may apply their fears, and perhaps rightfully so if the thing is fearful, but we should be free to seek to seek some remedy. And we certainly should not let the inmates run the asylum whether we can solve the problem today or not. It does not take a great deal of education to understand what is deviant and disgusting and abominable, but any activity involving defecation other than defecating would certainly apply. And as far as threatening society, why is it necessary that all of society be threatened? That is just as dumb as waiting for all of society to be murdered before seeking to resolve a murder. If a single child is saved from molestation then the effort could be worth it.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#24250 Jan 13, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is to the man unable to procreate.
Answer my question, it is more pertinent to the issue and in fact answers your question.
But you know that.
Smile.
Ok. You refuse to answer, again. So, here is the original question asked:

(post #24202)

Kimare,

Ask yourself a question. Is it OK for a normal healthy woman to marry a man confined to a wheelchair, whose ability to have sex and provide material for reproduction is at best a very slim chance or no possibility at all?

Well,.... is it [OK]? And, if it is, why is it?

*****

There is the question. Answer it, if you can. Two questions, actually. Please provide a specific reply to these two questions above.
And yes, they are specific and pertinent to the subject.

Rev. Ken

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#24251 Jan 13, 2014
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-candace-che...

Then she dropped the bomb.

She accused me of having a "myopic view/obsession" about being gay. There it was, the crux of the problem in our relationship. She has no idea why it is so important to me to constantly talk about being gay, to constantly talk about marriage and other rights denied to gays and lesbians. Because in her view, being gay is not "something God endorses."

Suddenly, I completely understood her "side" of the argument against gays and lesbians -- and it comes from an equally, if not more, "myopic view/obsession" with being straight and/or a deeply conservative Christian.

In my reply to her, I tried to spell it out as clearly as I could: I am not "obsessed" with my sexual orientation by choice -- any more than I actually chose my orientation in the first place. Every single gay or lesbian person who is concerned with any part of their lives is forced by society and the church to be "obsessed" with their sexual orientation.

I would love to live in a world where my sexual orientation did not matter. I would love it if society and the church never thought to ask, or shrugged and moved on when they found out. But I don't live in that world. I live in a world where, no matter how many years my partner and I live together, and no matter how many legal documents we compile between us, we will always be strangers under the law.

We may have wills, body disposition papers and other documents stating what we want done with our property, bodies and other worldly possessions, but all of those are up for grabs when family members smell money. Those legal documents don't stand a chance in a homophobic court system, especially here in the South, so don't tell me I can cobble together enough ad hoc legal protection to mimic marriage rights. It's impossible.

Society also won't let me forget about my sexual orientation when I go to work. In right-to-work states, I can be fired from my job just for being a lesbian -- or even being suspected of being one. More forward thinking companies are actually offering health benefits to same-sex partners, but we're taxed heavily on this "benefit," thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits federal recognition of even legal same-sex marriages.

Society won't turn a blind eye to my sexual orientation in other legal matters like hospital or jail visitation rights with my partner, especially if "real" family members object and even if I have a medical power of attorney. Again, we're strangers under the law, no matter how many years you're together or how many documents you produce to swear what your intentions are toward one another.

If we wander on over to the church building, we find, once again, it is the institution that refuses to ignore my sexual orientation -- and in some cases, my gender. There are many churches that, based on their view of Scripture, would refuse to have me for a member, let alone a deacon, board member, elder or, heaven forbid, the pastor. Many mainline churches have stepped up in the past few years and embraced openly gay and lesbian members, leaders and clergy -- but that's only because our community has been successful in its "obsession" about moving the church forward.

But I get my sister's blindness on this issue. Her life doesn't have to revolve around her sexual orientation because society has accepted her lifestyle as "the norm." She doesn't have to think about "coming out" at work or paying steep taxes to get on her spouse's medical insurance, or who may take away her right to make those heart wrenching decisions when a spouse is sick or incarcerated.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24252 Jan 13, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you look back, I've already answered that question for you. Along with every argument you raised.
Your response has consistently been to ignore the answer and raise another, or plead that we 'just do it'.
I guess if you have no answer, then you have no argument.
SMile.
No. You haven't.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24253 Jan 13, 2014
asd wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstand. Didn't mean "we," you and I, but meant "we," as a society, should be free to explore aspects of the mental, emotional, electro-chemical and all other processes associated with unnatural human behavior. I, nor you, have means of determining whether or not common, uneducated folk can effect a resolution or not. I am sure that some may apply their fears, and perhaps rightfully so if the thing is fearful, but we should be free to seek to seek some remedy. And we certainly should not let the inmates run the asylum whether we can solve the problem today or not. It does not take a great deal of education to understand what is deviant and disgusting and abominable, but any activity involving defecation other than defecating would certainly apply. And as far as threatening society, why is it necessary that all of society be threatened? That is just as dumb as waiting for all of society to be murdered before seeking to resolve a murder. If a single child is saved from molestation then the effort could be worth it.
"unnatural" is an unsupported assumption that contaminates your investigation.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24254 Jan 13, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. You refuse to answer, again. So, here is the original question asked:
(post #24202)
Kimare,
Ask yourself a question. Is it OK for a normal healthy woman to marry a man confined to a wheelchair, whose ability to have sex and provide material for reproduction is at best a very slim chance or no possibility at all?
Well,.... is it [OK]? And, if it is, why is it?
*****
There is the question. Answer it, if you can. Two questions, actually. Please provide a specific reply to these two questions above.
And yes, they are specific and pertinent to the subject.
Rev. Ken
I just wanted to be certain that is is restated, repeated and reiterated until answered.
Angel

Aurora, CO

#24255 Jan 13, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you look back, I've already answered that question for you. Along with every argument you raised.
Your response has consistently been to ignore the answer and raise another, or plead that we 'just do it'.
I guess if you have no answer, then you have no argument.
SMile.
So I went back through our history together, and it seems no, you have not answered that question. I did however,as you also mostly did, reply to each piont you made.

So, once again, what exact physical horribleness will you endure if gay people marry?
(Again barring anything that happens inside your head)
asd

Hawthorne, CA

#24256 Jan 13, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"unnatural" is an unsupported assumption that contaminates your investigation.
Don't understand your comment. I didn't specify any particular unnatural characteristic; but only spoke of the need to be free to examine any and all aspects of any unnatural human thing.
asd

Hawthorne, CA

#24257 Jan 13, 2014
akopen wrote:
Cont:
You put a lot of stock in this guy Tillich and his opinion. His opinion about scholarship and Systematic Theology and all those other things may or may not be relevant; just not to discussion on the meaning of the word ďabomination.Ē I donít understand your objections.

I put much stock into the greatest theologian of all time. But that does not mean that I accept what I've learned from Tillich, unconditionally. You failed to understand what quote I presented from Tillich. Understandable because you are ignorant to so very much that conditions one to understand, just like Jesus taught.
You are of course entitled to your opinion that the renounced Tillich was a great theologian; even though his writings evidence more of an atheist or at least a pantheist view. In 1973, Paul Tillichís wife Hannah wrote a book entitled, From Time to Time. In her book, Hannah Tillich described her late husband as a notorious adulterer, given to promiscuous sex and pornography. In fact, both Mr. and Mrs. Tillich were thought to be perverted sex addicts. Mrs. Tillich even admits in her book that she experimented with lesbianism. It is not that I donít necessarily understand your quotes; it is just that they were irrelevant to that discussion of whether the Bible considers their deviant activities abominable. In any event, even Tillich did not say that they werenít abominable or that their activities were not disgusting; but simply that they would be less anxious if they themselves accepted the fact of their deviancy. All humans, all life, is conditioned to understand certain basic realities. It is how we function in day to day life. We are all ignorant of many of the myriad elements that constitute that understanding, and that inane knowledge is infinitely less relevant than the basic understanding.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Opinion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 5 min Rose_NoHo 8,551
News Editorial: The eclipse effect: America looked u... 29 min Bovenzi13 1
News Say it in six words (Jul '08) 43 min _Peach_ 9,553
News Republicans have courted racists for years. Why... 1 hr Chilli J 123
News Only mass deportation can save America 1 hr Katrina 146
News The Military Coup Against Donald Trump of 2018,... 1 hr Trump_Is_Fake 102
News Letters on Homestead Heritage: Community or cult? (Oct '07) 3 hr Steven Spencer 8,770
More from around the web